HW Home	Previous CN	View CN	View TNM	View TNI	Next CN

Line 2348 - Commentary Note (CN)

Commentary notes (CN):

1. SMALL CAPS Indicate editions. Notes for each commentator are divided into three parts:

In the 1st two lines of a record, when the name of the source text (the siglum) is printed in SMALL CAPS, the comment comes from an EDITION; when it is in normal font, it is derived from a book, article, ms. record or other source. We occasionally use small caps for ms. sources and for works related to editions. See bibliographies for complete information (in process).

2. How comments are related to predecessors' comments. In the second line of a record, a label "without attribution" indicates that a prior writer made the same or a similar point; such similarities do not usually indicate plagiarism because many writers do not, as a practice, indicate the sources of their glosses. We provide the designation ("standard") to indicate a gloss in common use. We use ≈ for "equivalent to" and = for "exactly alike."

3. Original comment. When the second line is blank after the writer's siglum, we are signaling that we have not seen that writer's gloss prior to that date. We welcome correction on this point.

4. Words from the play under discussion (lemmata). In the third line or lines of a record, the lemmata after the TLN (Through Line Number] are from Q2. When the difference between Q2 and the authors' lemma(ta) is significant, we include the writer's lemma(ta). When the gloss is for a whole line or lines, only the line number(s) appear. Through Line Numbers are numbers straight through a play and include stage directions. Most modern editions still use the system of starting line numbers afresh for every scene and do not assign line numbers to stage directions.

5. Bibliographic information. In the third line of the record, where we record the gloss, we provide concise bibliographic information, expanded in the bibliographies, several of which are in process.

6. References to other lines or other works. For a writer's reference to a passage elsewhere in Ham. we provide, in brackets, Through Line Numbers (TLN) from the Norton F1 (used by permission); we call these xref, i.e., cross references. We call references to Shakespearean plays other than Ham. “parallels” (//) and indicate Riverside act, scene and line number as well as TLN. We call references to non-Shakespearean works “analogues.”

7. Further information: See the Introduction for explanations of other abbreviations. Click here for more information about browsing the entries and here for more information about the special symbols used in Hamletworks. Click the question mark icon above to remove this help message.

Notes for lines 2023-2950 ed. Frank N. Clary

For explanation of sigla, such as jen, see the editions bib.

2348 All may be well.	3.3.72

1773 gent1

gent1

2348 Gentleman (ed. 1773): “A long speech of Hamlet’s is here commendably thrown aside, first, as being unnecessary, and next, as tending to vitiate and degrade his character, much.”

1774 gent2

gent2 ≈ gent1

2348 Gentleman (ed. 1774): “A long speech of Hamlet’s is here commendably thrown aside, first, as being unnecessary, and next, as tending to vitiate and degrade his character, much.”

1805 Seymour

Seymour

2348 Seymour (1805, p. 182): “More idle interpolation: according to my judgment they are the arbitrary words of some actor.”

1853 coln

coln

2348 Collier (1853, p. 426): “The old mode of acting the scene appears to have been, that, when Hamlet came in at the back, the King knelt in front of the stage and did not retire and kneel, as stated in modern editions.”

1854 del2

del2

2348 Delius (ed. 1854): “In den Q’s., die allein eine Bühnenweisung haben, steht nur: he kneels. Dass der König sich zurückzieht(retires), wie die Herausgeber wollen, ist jedenfalls nicht so zu verstehen, als ob er die Bühne ganz verlasse. Vielmehr muss er fortwährend dem Publicum wie Hamlet sichtbar bleiben.” [In the Quartos, which are alone in having a stage direction, there is only he kneels. That the king withdraws (retires), as editors would have it, should in any case not mean that he leaves the stage completely. Rather he as well as Hamlet must continue to be visible to the audience.]

1856 hud1 (1851-6)

hud1: Coleridge

2348 Hudson (ed. 1851-6): “This speech well marks the difference between crimes and guilt of habit. The conscience here is still admitted to audience. Nay, even as an audible soliloquy, it is far less improbable than is supposed by such as have watched men only in the beaten road of their feelings. But the final—‘All may be well!’ is remarkable;—the degree of merit attributed by the self-flattering soul to its own struggles, though baffled, and to the indefinite half promise, half command, to persevere in religious duties.—Coleridge. H.”

1872 hud2

hud2=hud1

1872 del4

del4 ≈ del2

1877 v1877

v1877 ≈ Coleridge

2348 well] Furness (ed. 1877): “Coleridge: This speech well marks the difference between crime and guilt of habit. The conscience here is still admitted to audience. Nay, even as an audible soliloquy, it is far less improbable than is supposed by such as have watched men only in the beaten road of their feelings. But the final, ‘All may be well!’ is remarkable; the degree of merit attributed by the self-flattering soul to its own struggle, though baffled, and to the indefinite half-promise, half-command, to persevere in religious duties. The solution is in the divine medium of the Christian doctrine of expiation; not what you have done, but what you are, must determine.”

1881 hud3

hud3=hud2

1984 klein

klein: Coleridge

2348 Klein (ed. 1984): “’A degree of merit [is] attributed by the self-flattering soul to its own struggle, though baffled’ (Coleridge, Shakespearean Criticism, ed. T.M. Raysor [London and New York, 1930], Vol. I, p. 29). One is indeed surprised, seeing that Claudius has himself deduced the impossibility of forgiveness. The fact that his soliloquy eschews all reference to the concrete situation and the required actions heightens the ambivalence. If the next crime has not yet been planned—and the chances are that it has not—then this may show, besides self-deception, a vague glimmering of hope for some kind of lenient solution. On stage those representations have particularly well succeeded which put the King in front facing the audience or showing him in profile, with Hamlet behind him.”